Northern Nomadic Notices

After a very long break, I'm blogging more regularly. My interests are in politics, philosophy, psychology, economics, & the movies. I'm also an avid Edmonton Oiler & hockey fan. Interesting to me is that I used to have readers from Kenya, Brazil, the Netherlands, North Korea, and Italy, but seem to have lost them after my 2-year break. Currently, I still have some international presence with a Russian and a Croatian. Regardless, welcome to all and feel free to comment!

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Again, I was unable to restrain myself from defending Ayn Rand's ideas against gross misrepresentations. Thankfully, they are the same misrepresentations I see throughout liberal/progressive blogs and media articles. So my response is ready-to-post because I have posted many variants of it. This time, I responded to a comment from an article that criticizes the funding of the Florida Gulf Coast economics department by the Koch brothers. As an aside, despite some misguided decisions (e.g., funding the Romney Presidential campaign), I have every reason to believe the Koch brothers are libertarian and fund organizations that support political and economic liberty.

There were several false claims about her philosophy, but I picked one that seemed to capture most of misrepresentations in one sentence!

If you can find a single quote to prove this claim, you would be lying. This false claim (which appears to be mostly made by liberals/progressives) of Ayn Rand's ideas is widespread on the Internet. When you make these false claims, you are not exhibiting "free thought." When many of you misrepresent Rand's ideas with the same smears, that's called "group think." It also reveals that you did not read Rand (or if you did, you need to review what she actually wrote). What I suspect is happening is that these false claims are being propagated by online "criticisms" of Rand. Again, this is not evidence of "thinking for yourself."

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

How did Rand define altruism? (Hint: She did not define it as "helping others." She used the term as it was originally coined by August Comte. However, today "altruism" practically means "helping others.")

"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good...

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral
duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not
preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer
or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and
perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation,
and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage
on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties,
leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal."

To read a scholarly analysis of Ayn
Rand's view on altruism and why she opposed it, see this excellent series of essays by George H. Smith.

Did Rand oppose "cooperation"
or "volunteerism?" That's simply absurd. She opposed the welfare
state, which mandates how money (from taxation) is to redistributed/spent
(i.e., no longer the individual's choice). And she opposed involuntary taxation
because it was based upon coercion (e.g., imprisonment). But to know this about
Rand, you would need to read her first!

Indeed, she was all for voluntary cooperation, namely, promoting that people act freely (without coercion) in their rational self-interest, especially through trade. Whenever you buy something, you are trading. You are coming to a mutual agreement. In short, you are cooperating! I know it's hard for some progressives to not view the free market as a non-coercive mechanism for cooperation (probably thanks to left-leaning indoctrination), but that's a fact of reality and it's time to stop denying it.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

This blog is a little unusual for me as it is more personal. I gave myself permission to be self-disclosing because many people can relate to this issue. Since 2010, I have tried to lose weight 3 times. To those who have seen me, I know I don't appear fat, but I am what some call "skinny fat." Most of my fat collects around my gut. Based on BMI calculations and gut-check measurement (i.e., how much belly fat I can hold in my hands), I'm about 15 lbs overweight.

I have started my diets well enough. During the first month, I lose weight at a healthy rate (6-8 lbs). But after a month, I tend to lose my discipline for food tracking. I am currently using the Weight Watchers system, which includes online tracking (also an Android app) and weekly meetings. This time I am more determined than ever. 150 lbs is my goal. Going to meetings for the social support and sharing of tips and experiences is new for me. As a psychotherapist who has helped facilitate group therapy sessions, I have seen the benefits of an emotionally supportive group. So going to these weekly meetings can only be helpful in maintaining my motivation. I weighed in yesterday at 159.6 for a loss of 5.4 lbs after 3 weeks. So far, so good!

I have both external and internal incentives (e.g., health, appearance, my pants fitting comfortably). For an external incentive, I want to reach my goal-weight for my honeymoon to Italy (May 5, 2013). During my honeymoon, I suspect I will gain 3-5 pounds, but that's OK. That's only 2 more weeks of dieting. Once I lose all my weight, I'm going to return to regular weight-lifting (twice weekly) and keep tracking my diet so I maintain my weight. At some point, I may decide to increase my protein intake, but that's only if I am consistent with my weight-training. I really don't want to go back to 165 lbs and wear a beer belly. I've been pretty good about regular exercise. Weekly, I play ice hockey and do an interval run on the treadmill (to simulate the high-low aerobic intensity of hockey). And once it warms up, my wife and I will be cycling.

Friday, March 15, 2013

I posted this on a Goodreads thread about the book, Atlas Shrugged and Jesus Wept. I have not read it, but the comment thread was interesting. Whenever I see discussions of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I look for misrepresentations, which is not hard to do, and do my part to correct them. I'm all for criticizing ideas, but at the very least, a critic needs to first understand what they are criticizing. Straw men, after all, are easy to pull apart.My response was inspired by this comment:"I think it's refreshing to read about a true right wing believer, as opposed to these modern day right-wingers who are more concerned with what others are doing than with themselves."I think a more accurate description of her political philosophy is libertarian, as opposed to labeling her as a "true right wing believer."A libertarian can hold liberal views on people's personal lives as well as economic liberal (pro-free market) views. Plus, although many conservatives ("right-wingers") tend to extol the virtues of the free market, they tend not to to practice what they preach. Once in power, they are as guilty as liberal governments for bloating the size of government, intervening in the economy in all kinds of ways, including practicing crony capitalism/corporatism (i.e., privatizing profits, but socializing losses a la bailouts and business subsidies).As to Rand's notion of rational self-interest, although I don't agree that all moral behaviour needs to be justified by appealing to self-interest, I think there is a lot everyday behaviour in which the self is the primary beneficiary of one's actions. And I believe Rand offered a reasonable humanistic ethical philosophy that can be used as a guide in pursuing one's self-interested actions. Namely, she argued for pursuing values that objectively benefit the self in terms of one's happiness or flourishing. Then she appealed to an Aristotelian virtue ethics by arguing that if we adhere to values such as self-respect, honesty, integrity, rationality, and productiveness, that we do indeed further our happiness and flourishing.Some of her ethical claims can be testable (e.g., the link between pursuing certain virtues and one's happiness), and that's another reason that makes it a rational philosophy. In my own self-esteem research, I look at whether associating one's self-esteem with the practices of certain virtues (e.g., honesty, accountability, trustworthiness, kindness, effort, discipline), rather than depending on other people to "boost your ego," is a healthier way to maintain one's self-esteem. This idea for this research is, in part, influenced by Rand's ethical philosophy; albeit as refined by Nathaniel Branden's theorizing on self-esteem. My disagreement with the self-interest justification is that there can be moral beahviour in which the recipient is the primary beneficiary of a moral behaviour. Rand attempts to argue that the self must and always be the primary beneficiary of an action in order for it to be moral. I think a lot of times that is true, but not always. There will be times when you help someone and what they gain far exceeds what you receive (aside from feeling good about yourself). And moreover, that the action is morally good because the recipient has benefited from your actions. Where I agree with Rand is her opposition to self-sacrifice, or more precisely, that our purpose in life is to exist for others (i.e., the Christian ethic). I view this as logical impossibility because if we were truly selfless all the time, others can make unlimited demands on our time and effort. We couldn't have a life we could call our own. We could have to (guiltily) snuggles some "selfishness." And what about the people making demands of your time and effort? Are they not being selfish?

Monday, December 13, 2010

This is the beginning of the unintended consequences of socialized medicine in the US. Distort the incentives of a market and this is what you get. When the legislation comes into full force, my prediction is that rationed care and extraordinarily long wait-lists won't be too far behind.

Excerpt:

"The Physicians Foundation asked 2,400 doctors and American Medical Association members what they thought of the new law; a full 67 percent were against it.
More important, it asked how they'd cope with the new rules (which don't fully kick in until 2014). Sixty percent said they feel compelled to "close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients." And 59 percent said the "reform" would oblige them to spend less time with the patients they do have."

"Others are considering a
departure from the current system of third-party payment. Instead, they’re
exploring direct payment, with patients paying for care on their own.

Nearly two-thirds of doctors say
that they or their colleagues will retire earlier than planned over the next
few years, according to a survey conducted by consulting firm Deloitte.

Patients should
welcome this development. Not only does the move toward direct payment have the
potential to reduce health costs — it could also yield higher-quality care.

Even before
Obamacare, direct-pay practices were growing in popularity. According to the
Center for Studying Health System Change, direct-payment practices increased
from 9.2 percent of the market in 2001 to 12.4 percent by 2008.

Nearly 7
percent of doctors say they are planning to change to some form of direct-pay
care in the next three years, according to a survey of 13,000 doctors done for
the Physicians Foundation."

Saturday, December 11, 2010

On the website of the newly created Ludwig Von Mises Institute of Canada (awesome!), George Bragues posted the above blog regarding the possibility of individual happiness becoming a goal of government policy. Brague summarized his main concerns as follows:

"[Because] the wealthy supposedly do not get much additional happiness from all their money, while the less well-to-do can, let’s [through government intervention] redistribute incomes. That will augment the over-all level of happiness. And since, we’ll all be more equal as a result, people won’t be so dissatisfied by how they stand relative to others. Not only that, if people can be encouraged to become less avaricious, they can get off the so-called “hedonic treadmill” and focus instead on their families, friends, and communities."

I posted this response (with some revisions for my blog):

Talking about redistribution of wealth policies, what we need is an empirical analysis of the 'money for nothing' policy of Canada's Inuit people. Several of the communities in Nunavut have had been in a sustained state of welfare (i.e., over 50% on Social Assistance) since at least the 80s, if not longer. When I worked with Gov't of the NWT in the 90s, some communities had welfare rates of 80%.

Interested to see what the current statistics were, the Internet was very obliging. For 2010/11, the estimated transfer payment from the Federal gov't to Nunavut is 1.2 billion, which is $35,000 per person. (The NWT is not much better at $23,000 per person.) From 2001-2004, about 8,000 people per year have received Social Assistance (i.e., welfare payments) in Nunavut. That's about 25% of the population of Nunavut (In 2006, the population of Nunavut was 29,474,with 24,640 people identifying themselves as Inuit.)

Do we see an increase in happiness of the Inuit of Nunavut? Inuit suicide rates are more than 11 times higher than the Canadian rate, according to Health Canada. And 83% of these are people under 30 years of age.

This statistic is probably the tip of the ice berg of the state of well-being of Nunavut people. If anyone at the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada wants to do research on how chronic welfare destroys a person's (and culture's!) psychological well-being, Nunavut would be a place to study.

Monday, December 6, 2010

"Why are there long waiting lines that do not dissipate quickly? In economic parlance, this comes about because demand is greatly in excess of supply. There is no other reason; that is it: supply's falling short of demand is a necessary and sufficient cause of long and enduring queues.

But to answer in this manner is only to put off the inevitable question: why does demand continue to exceed supply in some markets but not in others? Again, the answer comes straight out of Economics 101: a permanent shortage arises and endures if and only if prices are pegged at below-equilibrium levels and kept there through force of law.

Some people think there is something special about medical care. There is not. Yes, if we do not avail ourselves of it, we will be in dire straits. But no less can be said for food, clothing, shelter, energy, transportation - you name it. And economic law, just as in the case of chemistry or physics, is no respecter of how important an industry is to human well-being; it works just the same in medical services as for paper clips or rubber bands. Impose artificially lower prices in a market - let alone virtually zero prices as in medicine - and you guarantee a shortage."